|
Thursday, 22 April 2010 19:29 |
With straightforward majority reasoning of "ignorance of the law is no excuse" and a dissent that included fears of plaintiffs' attorneys run amok, the ruling has something for everyone. But an ARM legal expert notes that the impact will be immediate and burdensome for collection lawyers.
The United States Supreme Court Wednesday handed down a ruling that severely complicates the bona fide error defense under the FDCPA for ARM companies involved in litigation.
In a 7-2 ruling, the Court said that collection law firms could not use misinterpretations of the law in a bona fide error defense under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Tuesday, 01 December 2009 12:42 |
|
Submitted by SHNS on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:20
By ISAAC WOLF, Scripps Howard News Service
Forty percent of Americans report that debt collectors have threatened them or their families with violence, otherwise harassed them or called at inappropriate times, according to a Scripps Howard survey.
A 1977 federal law, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, prohibits debt collectors from engaging in such actions.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Wednesday, 25 November 2009 12:15 |
|
By Marcia Coyle
Debt collectors who use unfair or deceptive tactics during collection litigation cannot rely on the First Amendment's petition clause as a defense, ruled the Alaska Supreme Court recently in the first appellate decision on the issue.
In an increasing number of consumer cases, debt collection agencies have been arguing that their litigation tactics are immunized from suits under state and federal unfair trade practices laws because those suits burden their constitutional right to petition the courts, according to Deepak Gupta of Public Citizen Litigation Group, appellate counsel to the debtor in the Alaskan case.
“The Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling sends the message that debt collection companies can’t get away with abusive tactics simply by hiring lawyers,” said Gupta. “The court rejected a dangerous new immunity defense that would have created a gaping hole in consumer protection law.”
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
|
|
|
